Canadian conservatism needs relationship rescue: "…and how's
that working for Canada's neighbour?" - Part 2 of 3
By J.L. Jackson and Lisa Snee
web posted March 24, 2003
Canadian conservatives have become political refugees. That is
why more and more of Canada's top conservative thinkers
continue to pack their bags and move south.
Real live, full-out, traditional conservatism is so traditional it is
revolutionary. America's freedom has allowed conservative ideas
to come back into vogue. Great writers and thinkers like David
Frum, author of The Right Man: the surprise presidency of
George W. Bush, are Canadian conservatives who are bi-
national in their approach, bringing a new North American
perspective to conservatism.
Judging by the sheer volume of Canadian emails read each day
on CNN's Crossfire, it appears that Crossfire, and other
American political shows like it, may soon be replacing hockey
as Canada's national pastime (Canadians do not receive FOX
News as it has not been approved by the CRTC). In November,
Crossfire host Robert Novak, had the good sense to call
Canadians "weenies". This comment was following the "moron"
fiasco, when the Chretien's aide Francois Ducros, was heard
calling Bush a moron to a CBC reporter. Incidentally, it was not
the state sponsored CBC reporter who reported the scene
(indicating an incestuous relationship between CBC's political
reporters and Liberal bureaucrats): the National Post's Robert
Fife blew the lid off the story by reporting what was said, and
which Liberal bureaucrat said it. Quite revolutionary in Canadian
journalistic circles.
Ducros turned out to be just one left-wing Liberal in a long line
of Liberals who like the Germans and the French, plan on riding
anti-American sentiment as an electoral ploy. We have Carolyn
Parrish, Liberal MP from Mississauga, Ontario, caught on tape
exclaiming, "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards." When
questioned in Mexico, Prime Minister Chretien easily dismissed
Parrish's statements as merely part of a "love-hate" relationship.
Even going so far as to justify Parrish's outburst, "We should
have somewhat the right to have a personal reaction toward
something," Chretien told Canadian Press. On the eve of the
United States going into Iraq we even had a government
minister, Herb Dhaliwal stressing his opinion that Bush failed as
statesman in the Iraq process. Chretien, by this time has tried to
put the brakes on the growing rabid anti-Americanism that is
breaking out in his caucus, but this is difficult when it has
obviously been encouraged behind closed doors up to this point
in time.
Are Canadians weenies?
In frustration with a seemingly indiscriminate Liberal voting
preference, many Canadian conservatives might agree with
Novak's weeniness assessment. But Novak's "blame Canada"
analysis is rather South Parkishly simplistic. It neither helps
Canadian conservatism or American homeland security. Novak
would be more accurate in saying the Canadian Liberal
government and its bureaucrats a bunch of "weenies". That is a
statement a great many Canadians would agree with.
Even though Canadians are becoming increasingly disenchanted
with the Liberal government, for many, there is apparently no
alternative to the Liberals.
Why should Americans care if Canadian conservatism is having
trouble finding its voice? Americans need to care because
conservatism is Canada's last defence for a free and democratic
future. In examining, "…and how's that working for Canada's
neighbour?" Americans will find that the Canadian Liberal
government's weeniness and the lack of a real conservative
alternative is pulling the United States down.
Canadian border security and Hillary Clinton
You just know things are bad, when Hillary Clinton points out
that Canadian border security and immigration policy is ''pretty
liberal''. Ottawa, of course, demanded an apology, and Clinton
rightfully refused to give one. Michael John Hamdani tricked
Canadian Mounties into thinking that five men supposedly
infiltrated the United States from Canada over the New Year's
holiday, hoping to cut a better deal after being caught operating a
fake passport business. "In fact, because of the real deficiencies
in security along our northern border, this hoax seemed all too
believable,'' Clinton said.
Rather then buying into Canadian ‘nana booboo' vindication
regarding the fact that these five didn't cross, Senator Clinton is
quite right in pointing out that they could have. And considering
the Canadian raid uncovered hundreds of fake passports,
immigration documents, and counterfeit traveler's checks for
hundreds of thousands of dollars, one wonders how many have
crossed already?
Toronto police agree with Senator Clinton. Mid-February,
Toronto police called Canada a "sieve". The comment was
related to two Jamaicans accused of violent robbery and hostage
taking, re-entering the country. Phillip Snead, an American
charged with drug offences, was also once again caught in
Ontario this same week, he has been deported to the United
States and re-entered Canada a total of 12 times.
The Canadian military's decline a concern for Canada's
neighbour
The Canadian military has been so effectively gutted, many
wonder if Canada were attacked, what kind of defence the
Canadian military could realistically offer. This of course, opens
up a giant, yawning northern hole in United States homeland
security.
The impetus for the ‘moron' debacle was President Bush's
suggestion at last year's NATO summit that Canada needs to
increase its defence spending. This struck a raw nerve in
Canadian Liberal circles for all the right reasons.
Still not having come to grips with the reality that Canada too,
has made Bin Laden's hit list, the Liberal's whine they cannot
afford to finance the army. It is true that military spending is
expensive, and since Canada can cheaply ride on America's coat
tails, why bother wasting money? It is much better to spend
Canadian tax dollars fighting "child poverty" -- a cause that is
empathetically vague and abstract -- a great excuse to create
new government departments to study the issue. Bigger
government, not a bigger army is always the Liberal agenda.
The current Liberal budget delivered in February, supposedly
increases military spending to $800 million per year. But first a
little arithmetic -- minus $200 million (recent military spending
cuts) from this year's defence budget, and don't forget to include
Canada's Leopard tanks being scrapped, bringing this year's
spending actually to less than $600 million. The Liberals brag
that this much has not been spent on the Canadian military since
the 1991 Gulf War, but that offers scarce comfort in a dangerous
world where gutting Canada's army has been a long-term,
ongoing Liberal project.
The state of the Canadian military is bad and getting worse. In
September, Lewis MacKenzie, Major General (ret'd), wrote an
open letter to President Bush asking if he wouldn't mind donating
a spare billion or so to the Canadian army. Published in the
National Post, the letter was satirical, but it was also prophetic.
In November Canada's homeland security received the short
shrift when the Coast Guard in Newfoundland ran out of gas.
The federal minister in charge told them to dock their ships
"unless they are needed".
Paul Martin, Canada's supposed Prime Minister-in-waiting, will
hopefully endorse higher defence spending, but he is expected to
also streamline Canada's military and focus on areas of expertise.
Translation: Martin will follow Chretien's gutting as much as he
can get away with.
Canadian Isolationism
Canada's isolationist stretch is increasing in all policy, but
nowhere is this current Liberal regime's isolationism more
stubbornly noticeable than in its drug policy. Canada should be
working with its North American allies to combat the traffic of
illegal drugs, if for not other reason then organised crime and
drug trafficking money is helping to finance terrorism. But instead
Canadian Justice Minster Martin Cauchon has pledged to
decriminalize marijuana in the early part of 2003. Logically he
will try to sneak this Liberal legislation through while Americans
are preoccupied in Iraq, hoping President Bush who has already
placed Canada on the United States drug list, will not notice.
And if Mexico, Nigeria, Thailand and twenty other countries
made President Bush's "majors" list, Canada and Holland made
the ‘minors'. Canada was singled out as a "primary source of
pseudoephedrine," exported to the States for the illegal
production of synthetic drugs like Ecstasy. In January, Health
Canada approved new policy regulating pseudoephedrine (also
used as cold medication). Losing patience with Canada's
ongoing foot dragging, however, the US proclamation stated the
regulations "should be stronger."
President Bush is also concerned Canada is becoming an,
"increasing source of high potency marijuana." Canadians should
also be concerned.
The US Drug Enforcement Agency reported in 2000, "Canadian
law enforcement officials estimate that [hydroponic] cannabis
cultivation in British Columbia now yields a billion-dollar annual
profit." This is the infamous "BC Bud," biogenetically altered
through plant hormones and steroids: potency is between 15 –
25 per cent THC (active cannabis ingredient) while pot smoked
in the 1970's was 2 per cent THC. Add this to a RCMP report
explaining how some trafficking groups are smuggling cocaine
back into Canada in payment for their illegal high-grade weed. In
February, a Globe and Mail article also reported three men
caught smuggling guns back into Canada in a likely guns-for-
drugs deal.
According to the US State Department, 11 Canadian federal
departments are only spending approximately $500 million to
combat illicit drug use in Canada. A very paltry amount,
considering the Liberal government flushed over $1 billion down
the toilet chasing duck hunters and farmers who haven't
registered grandpa's rusty old rifle. Compare this also to the $2
billion the current Liberal regime has put aside for Kyoto's vague
pre-implementation needs in the recent budget added to the $1.6
billion already spent prior to Kyoto's ratification.
In decriminalizing marijuana, Canada is following a European
drug policy, but is physically situated in North America. The
United States would not be blamed if it were to wonder if in
following Holland's freewheeling 30 grams decriminalization
policy, Canada's goal was to reach for Holland's dubious
achievement of now rivalling Morocco as the principal source of
European marijuana. Decriminalization in Holland combined with
other liberal drug laws has encouraged a lucrative home grow
pot industry that has given growers the financial leverage to move
into the synthetic drug industry, manufacturing drugs like Ecstasy
and amphetamines – mostly for export. Holland has also become
the primary world supplier of Ecstasy and other synthetic drugs.
Even well known appeaser, French President Jacques Chirac
has harshly criticized Dutch drug policy, demanding Holland get
tough on drugs and crime. Thanks to a proliferation of socially
Liberal judges, Canada is already well on the way to following all
the failures of this Eurosocialist drug policy even before
decriminalization is passed in Parliament.
Many Dutch people now see their rapidly burgeoning post-
modern organised crime rings tied not only to prohibition but also
to immigration. In a pre-September 11 Dutch Parliamentary
report, excerpts published on the Amsterdam Daily's website
claimed, "Immigrant and foreign groups play a big role in the
drug trade which is directly linked to the drugs economy in the
country of origin. This is especially true of groups in the Surinam,
Moroccan and Turkish community." According to the same
report, the money is not laundered in Holland but rather sent
back to the countries of origin to finance radical political
movements that partake in what we refer to as terrorism. Also
mentioned in the report were Colombian cartels, the Italian
Mafia or the Moroccan hash groups: all alive and well in
Holland.
Canadians are illogical if they think decriminalizing marijuana,
slack immigration policy, judges refusing to implement laws
already on the books will not lead to greater organised crime
activity -- with export to the United States being the lucrative
goal.
By looking at Canada's non-role in Iraq war one would think
that Canada holds the United Nations opinion in the very high
regard. Not so, when it comes to multilateral drug policy. Not
only has the United States warned Canada to not go down this
potentially disastrous path, the United Nations has warned
Canada as well. Canada, however, is not afraid to take a
unilateral position when defending their left-wing ideals that are
more at home in old Europe than in North America. Even though
it may help finance terrorism and could hurt Canada's neighbour
with whom we do 85 per cent of our trade, Canada must exert
its sovereignty. Although it must be acknowledged that increasing
availability of weed and decreasing military spending is a peculiar
way to defend a country's sovereignty.
In relation to our falling dollar, as a defence mechanism, amongst
ourselves, Canadian conservatives often joke about Canada
becoming the ‘Mexico of the North'. The burning question is
why do the Liberals want to replace Bob and Doug McKenzie,
nice beer drinking, touque wearing Canadian comedic icons,
with Cheech and Chong?
In trying to "sell" a conservative message divorced from any
"social" stigma, both the Progressive Conservative party and the
official opposition, the Canadian Alliance are surprisingly in
favour of decriminalization. With no political party in Canada
willing to provide full-out opposition to decriminalization,
legislation will be rammed through Parliament similar to how the
Kyoto Protocol was rammed through Parliament before
Christmas. But this time, there will be no opposition whatsoever.
From within the Alliance and the PC parties, certain individual
full-out conservative MPs strongly oppose this issue. A full-out
conservative message is muted, before it can find its voice,
however, due to both parties' hierarchies shunning controversial
issues of this nature. It is Canadian "economic conservatives"
(code name for half-conservatives who follow politically correct
propaganda so as to not provoke controversy) who are in favour
of decriminalizing marijuana. Their excuse falls under the
auspices of "libertarianism," for the Alliance or being
"progressive" for the Progressive Conservatives.
The Alliance party in particular, has taken a defeatist, non-
combative and decidedly un-conservative approach, hoping to
avoid controversy by subscribing to a 5 grams is better than 30
grams policy. Strangely, it seems that Canadian conservative
politicians are chasing the same 50 per cent that will vote Liberal
anyway, while half of Canada is against decriminalization.
A Maclean's, Global Television and CanWest poll conducted
December 2002, shows public opinion against decriminalization
to be 47 per cent plus (3.1 per cent of error and 3 per cent
without an opinion). This, of course, is the un-trendy, full-out
conservative crowd that believes in absolutes. This is a national
issue, but no political party in Canada desires to claim the
unrepresented 47 per cent plus.
If Americans believe that drug money is financing terror, they
must be very wary of what is happening in their unfenced
neighbour's backyard. With no clear conservative opposition,
decriminalization of marijuana will undoubtedly sail through
Canadian Parliament unrestrained. In this, Canadian conservative
politicians will share the blame with the Liberals they are trying to
defeat.
Next week, Canadian conservatism needs relationship rescue:
what's the pay-off?